World estimates of PV optimal tilt angles and ratios of ...

[Pages:12]Solar Energy 169 (2018) 55?66

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy

journal homepage: locate/solener

World estimates of PV optimal tilt angles and ratios of sunlight incident T

upon tilted and tracked PV panels relative to horizontal panels

Mark Z. Jacobson, Vijaysinh Jadhav

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4020, USA

ARTICLE INFO

Keywords: Solar photovoltaics Tracking Optimal tilt Solar radiation

ABSTRACT

This study provides estimates of photovoltaic (PV) panel optimal tilt angles for all countries worldwide. It then estimates the incident solar radiation normal to either tracked or optimally tilted panels relative to horizontal panels globally. Optimal tilts are derived from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's PVWatts program. A simple 3rd-order polynomial fit of optimal tilt versus latitude is derived. The fit matches data better above 40? N latitude than do previous linear fits. Optimal tilts are then used in the global 3-D GATOR-GCMOM model to estimate annual ratios of incident radiation normal to optimally tilted, 1-axis vertically tracked (swiveling vertically around a horizontal axis), 1-axis horizontally tracked (at optimal tilt and swiveling horizontally around a vertical axis), and 2-axis tracked panels relative to horizontal panels in 2050. Globally- and annuallyaveraged, these ratios are 1.19, 1.22, 1.35, and 1.39, respectively. 1-axis horizontal tracking differs from 2-axis tracking, annually averaged, by only 1?3% at most all latitudes. 1-axis horizontal tracking provides much more output than 1-axis vertical tracking below 65? N and S, whereas output is similar elsewhere. Tracking provides little benefit over optimal tilting above 75? N and 60? S. Tilting and tracking benefits generally increase with increasing latitude. In fact, annually averaged, more sunlight reach tilted or tracked panels from 80 to 90? S than any other latitude. Tilting and tracking benefit cities of the same latitude with lesser aerosol and cloud cover. In sum, for optimal utility PV output, 1-axis horizontal tracking is recommended, except for the highest latitudes, where optimal tilting is sufficient. However, decisions about panel configuration also require knowing tracking equipment and land costs, which are not evaluated here. Installers should also calculate optimal tilt angles for their location for more accuracy. Models that ignore optimal tilting for rooftop PV and utility PV tracking may underestimate significantly country or world PV potential.

1. Introduction

Global solar photovoltaic (PV) installations on rooftops and in power plants are growing rapidly and will grow further as the world transitions from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy (Jacobson et al., 2017). A critical parameter for installing fixed-tilt panels is the tilt angle, since PV panel output increases with increasing exposure to direct sunlight. Energy modelers also need to know the optimal tilt angle of a panel for calculating regional or global PV output in a given location or worldwide.

Another issue for installers and modelers is whether 1-axis vertical tracked PV panels (panels that face south or north and swivel vertically around a horizontal axis) receive more incident radiation than 1-axis horizontal tracked panels (panels at optimal tilt angle that swivel horizontally around a vertical axis), and the extent to which incident radiation to 1-axis- and 2-axis-tracked panels (which combine 1-axis vertical and horizontal tracking capabilities to follow the sun perfectly

during the day) exceeds that of optimally tilted panels. Finally, because global and regional weather and climate models almost all calculate radiative transfer assuming that radiation impinges on horizontal surfaces, energy modelers also need estimates of the ratio of incident solar radiation to panels that track the sun or are optimally-tilted to that of panels that are placed horizontally on a flat surface.

This study first provides estimates of optimal tilt angles derived from the NREL PVWatts program (NREL, 2017) at 1?4 sites in each country of the world. These optimal tilt angles are representative of assumed historic meteorological conditions near a given site, so are only approximate. Although installers would need to make more precise calculations at each site, the results provided here are still useful rough estimates. The study then provides convenient albeit rough polynomial fits to the PVWatts data of the optimal tilt angle as a function of latitude for both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. The optimal tilt data by country and by latitude are then input into a global climate model, GATOR-GCMOM for year 2050 meteorological and air quality

Corresponding author. E-mail address: jacobson@stanford.edu (M.Z. Jacobson).

Received 18 December 2017; Received in revised form 4 April 2018; Accepted 13 April 2018 0038-092X/ ? 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

M.Z. Jacobson, V. Jadhav

Solar Energy 169 (2018) 55?66

conditions, to provide ratios of incident solar radiation normal to an optimally tilted, 1-axis vertically-tracked, 1-axis horizontally-tracked, and 2-axis tracked PV panel relative to a horizontal panel.

The reasons for using GATOR-GCMOM rather than PVWatts for the global calculations are (1) GATOR-GCMOM covers the entire world, whereas PVWatts covers locations only near specific meteorological stations, (2) GATOR-GCMOM is used here to examine a future 2050 scenario, where aerosol, cloud, temperature, and wind speed properties differ from today, whereas PVWatts treats only past conditions, and (3) we want to use GATOR-GCMOM to calculate incident solar radiation for the two components of 1-axis horizontal tracking that, when combined, exactly comprise the components of 2-axis tracking, and this cannot be done with current PVWatts output. Specifically, one way for a panel to follow the sun exactly throughout the day (2-axis tracking), is for the panel to swivel horizontally around a vertical axis and, independently, swivel vertically around a horizontal axis. In this study, we calculate incident radiation for both cases ? namely vertical tracking (swiveling vertically around a horizontal axis with the panel facing south or north) and horizontal tracking (swiveling horizontally around a vertical axis with the panel at optimal south-north tilt), and separately calculate incident radiation for 2-axis tracking. Whereas PVWatts calculates incident radiation for 2-axis tracking, it does not consider either of the above 1-axis options; instead, it invokes a third option, which is to swivel east-to-west around an axis parallel to a specified tilt, not necessarily the optimal tilt, of the panel. That option is not examined here, but the 1-axis horizontal tracking option treated here results in incident radiation within 1?3% of the 2-axis tilting option at most latitudes, thus may be close to optimal, if not optimal, for 1-axis tracking.

Many studies have provided equations that allow for the theoretical calculation of the optimal tilt angle over time of a solar collector based on Earth-sun geometry (e.g., Kern and Harris, 1975; Koronakis, 1986; Lewis, 1987; Gunerhan and Hepbash, 2009; Chang, 2009; Talebizadeh et al., 2011; Yadav and Chandel, 2013). Some of these studies have derived simple linear expressions of optimal tilt angle versus latitude (Chang, 2009; Talebizadeh et al., 2011). However, optimal tilt depends not only on latitude but also on weather conditions, including cloud cover (Kern and Harris, 1975) and the altitude above sea level (Yadav and Chandel, 2013). Because of the difficulty in determining optimal tilt angle as a function of cloud cover and weather conditions, calculators such as PVWatts (NREL, 2017), are often used to estimate optimal tilt angles at specific locations (Yadav and Chandel, 2013). Here, we first use PVWatts to estimate 1?4 optimal tilt angles for each country of the world.

Breyer and Schmid (2010a) combined satellite data with geometric and radiative equations to map global estimates of optimal tilt angles for solar PV. Similarly, Breyer and Schmid (2010a, 2010b), Breyer (2012), Bogdanov and Breyer (2016), Kilickaplan et al. (2017), Breyer et al. (2017a, 2017b), Sadiqa et al. (2018) have applied tilting, singleaxis, and/or 2-axis tracking equations to regionally- or globally-gridded solar radiation satellite datasets for energy analysis. However, it appears that no 3-D global or regional climate, weather, or air pollution model has included tilting, 1-axis horizontal tracking, 1-axis vertical tracking, or 2-axis tracking interactively within it. Pelland et al. (2011) used horizontal-plate solar radiation output from a downscaled climate model to estimate PV output from fixed-tilt panels. However, the calculation was done offline (after the 3-D model simulation was performed) rather than online (interactive within the 3-D model), thus it could not examine the effects of, for example, instantaneous temperature and wind speed, on panel performance. This study offers the opportunity to estimate global PV output anywhere in the world with tilted or tracked panels relative to horizontal panels using consistent meteorology and accounting for temperature and wind speed on panel performance.

The ideal tracking or tilting option depends not only on the incident solar radiation relative to a horizontal surface but also on the land or roof area needed to avoid shading, and the cost of tracking versus

tilting. For example, 2-axis tracking in a utility PV plant requires more land area to avoid shading panels behind the front row than do 1-axis tracking or optimal tilting, and 2-axis equipment is more expensive than is 1-axis equipment or optimal tilting. Shading depends not only on panel tilting, but also on the height that panels are placed relative to each other. For example, panels that track the sun placed on a southfacing hillside will likely see less shading than will panels on uniformly elevated ground. Shading further depends on the number of panels placed on each single platform that tracks the sun. In sum, the decision about what type of tracking or tilting option is best ultimately depends not only on the incident radiation received normal to each panel, but also on the land or roof area required to avoid shading and on the cost. In this study, we examine only the ratios of incident radiation with different tilting and tracking options relative to horizontal panels. We do not consider areas required or costs. However, these topics are discussed at length in Breyer (2012).

2. Methodology for determining optimal tilt angles

We first use PVWatts (NREL, 2017), which combines solar resource data from a specific location with 30 years of historic temperature and wind speed data from a nearby meteorological station, characteristics of a solar panel, and orientation of the panel relative to the sun. PVWatts uses `typical year' meteorology from each station, which is relevant, since the data have considerable inter-annual variability. For example, in the U.S., solar output during the lowest 10th percentile solar output meteorological year is on average, 4.8% less than that during the 50th percentile year (Ryberg et al., 2015). PVWatts uses solar data from the National Solar Radiation Database 1961?1990 for the U.S., the Canadian Weather for Energy Calculations database for Canada, and both ASHRAE International Weather for Energy Calculations Version 1.1 data and Solar and Wind Energy Resource Assessment Program data for all other countries. "Typical year" solar radiation values from these databases are updated by PVWatts to account for the reduction in sunlight due to clouds and air pollution at each site. Panel altitude, latitude, longitude, and angle relative to the sun are used to estimate exposure of the panel to sunlight. Air temperature and wind speed data are used to estimate panel temperature.

Here, PVWatts is used to estimate annually averaged solar output in all countries of the world assuming tilted panels. The optimal tilt angle in each location is found by calculating panel output with different tilt angles until the tilt angle giving the maximum output is found. That tilt angle is the optimal tilt angle. In most countries, an optimal tilt angle is estimated for only one location. For several large countries, estimates are obtained for 2?4 locations (Table 1). The optimal tilt angles calculated here are not necessarily the most cost-effective fixed tilt angles because they do not account for the additional land needed to minimize shading between panels (Section 3.2 of Breyer (2012)).

The main assumptions for the calculations with PVWatts include the following: 10 kW of premium panels with a temperature coefficient of -0.0035/K and 10% efficiency losses. Such losses include soiling (2%), wiring (2%), connections (0.5%), mismatch (2%), light-induced degradation (1.5%), nameplate rating (1%), shading (0.5%), and availability (0.5%). All panels are assumed to face due south in the Northern Hemisphere (180? azimuth angle) or due north in the Southern hemisphere (0? azimuth angle), with the exception of Nairobi, Kenya, which is slightly in the Southern Hemisphere (-1.32 S), but has an optimal tilt angle calculated to face 4? southward.

3. Optimal tilt angle results

Table 1 provides all optimal tilt angle results from PVWatts. Fig. 1 shows the resulting optical tilt angles versus latitude for each location in each country of the world in Table 1. The results are approximate for each location, so installers would need to make more exact calculations at their location of interest. 3rd-order polynomials are fit through the

56

M.Z. Jacobson, V. Jadhav

Table 1 Optimal tilt angles for fixed tilt solar PV panels for all countries of the world.

Country

Representative City

Nearest Meteorological Station

Iceland Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Australia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cabo Verde Cambodia Cameroon Canada Canada Canada Central Afr. Republic Chad Chile China China China China Colombia Comoros Congo Congo Dem Rep of Costa-Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Dutch-Antilles Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland France France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany

Reykjav?k Kandahar Sarande Algiers Andorra La Vella Luanda St. Johns Buenos Aires Yerevan Darwin Perth Sydney Graz Lankaran Nassau Riffa Chittagong Bridgetown Minsk Saint Hubert Belize City Port Novo Thimphu La Paz Banja Luka Gaborone Manaus Rio De Janeiro Bandar Seri Begaw Plovdiv Banfora Bujumbura Praia Phnom Penh Douala Calgary Vancouver Montreal Carnot N'Djamena Antofagasta Beijing Shanghai Lhasa Kunming Bogota Moroni Owando Lubumbashi San Jose Zadar Sancti Spiritus Larnaca Ostrava Copenhagen Djibouti Roseau Santo Domingo Willemstad Quito Aswan Ilopango Bata Keren Tartu Gondar Nadi Helsinki Lyon Bordeaux Libreville Banjul Tbilisi Cologne

Reykjav?k Karachi, Pakistan S Maria Di Leuca Algiers Gerona, Spain Harare, Zimbabwe Fort-De-France Buenos Aires Tabriz, Iran Darwin Perth Sydney Graz Tabriz, Iran Saua La Grande Riyadh Chittagong Fort-De-France Minsk Saint Hubert Belize Accra, Ghana Pagri, China La Paz Banja Luka Johannesburg Manaus Rio De Janeiro Bandar Seri Begawan Plovdiv Accra, Ghana Kisii, Kenya Dakar, Senegal Bangkok, Thailand Accra, Ghana Calgary Vancouver Montreal Accra, Ghana Accra, Ghana Antofagasta Beijing Shanghai Lhasa Kunming Bogota Antananarivo Accra, Ghana Harare, Zimbabwe Rivas, Nicaragua Ancona, Italy Sancti Spiritus Larnaca Ostrava Copenhagen Combolcha/Dessie Fort-De-France Aquadilla Borinquen Caracas, Venezuela Quito Aswan Ilopango Accra, Ghana Gondar, Ethiopia Helsinki, Finland Gondar Nadi Helsinki Lyon Bordeaux Accra, Ghana Dakar, Senegal Tabriz, Iran Cologne

57

Station Lat. (deg.)

64.13 24.9 39.65 36.72 41.9 -17.92 14.6 -34.82 38.05 -12.42 -31.93 -33.95 47 38.05 22.82 24.7 22.27 14.6 53.87 50.03 17.53 5.6 27.73 -16.52 44.78 -26.13 -3.13 -22.9 4.93 42.13 5.6 -0.67 14.73 13.92 5.6 51.12 49.18 45.5 5.6 5.6 -23.43 39.93 31.17 29.67 25.02 4.7 -18.8 5.6 -17.92 11.42 43.62 21.93 34.88 49.72 55.63 11.08 14.6 18.5 10.6 -0.15 23.97 13.7 5.6 12.53 60.32 12.53 -17.75 60.32 45.73 44.83 5.6 14.73 38.05 50.87

Solar Energy 169 (2018) 55?66

StationLon. (deg.)

Opt tilt

-21.9 67.13 18.35 3.25 2.77 31.13 -61 -58.53 46.17 130.88 115.95 151.18 15.43 46.17 -80.08 46.8 91.82 -61 27.53 5.4 -88.3 -0.17 89.08 -68.18 17.22 28.23 -60.02 -43.17 114.93 24.75 -0.17 34.78 -17.5 100.6 -0.17 -114.02 -123.17 -73.62 -0.17 -0.17 -70.43 116.28 121.43 91.13 102.68 -74.13 47.48 -0.17 31.13 85.83 13.37 -79.45 33.63 18.18 12.67 39.72 -61 -67.13 -66.98 -78.48 32.78 -89.12 -0.17 37.43 24.97 37.43 177.45 24.97 5.08 -0.7 -0.17 -17.5 46.17 7.17

43 25 30 31 37 -22 14 -30 30 -18 -27 -31 33 30 21 26 25 14 32 35 16 6a 32 -22 33 -29 -7a -22 5a 30 6a -3a 14 15 6a 45 34 37 6a 6a -22 37 23 31 25 5a -18 6a -22 14 30 21 30 33 36 15 14 20 10 -3a 24 18 6a 18 39 18 -18 39 30 33 6a 14 30 32

(continued on next page)

M.Z. Jacobson, V. Jadhav

Table 1 (continued)

Country

Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hong Kong Hungary India India Indonesia Iran Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Ivory Coast Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea Korea DPR Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyz Republic Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Mexico Micronesia Moldova Republic Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea

Representative City

Munich Accra Catalan Bay Athens Guatemala City Conakry Bissau Dadanawa Port-Au-Prince Catacamas Hong Kong Debrecen Rajkot Chennai Balikpapan Tehran Yazd Baghdad Kilkenny Be'Er Sheva Catania Yamoussoukro Kingston Osaka Amman Zhezqazghan Nairobi South Tarawa Kwangju Pyongyang Prishtina Kuwait City Jalal-Abad Vientiane Daugavpils Beirut Maseru Monrovia Tripoli Vaduz Kaunas Luxembourg Bitola Kuala Lumpur Gan Island Bamako Rabat Kwajalein Atoll Nouakchott Port Louis Mexico City Merida Palikir Chisinau Monaco-Ville Ulaanbaatar Podgorica Casablanca Maputo Yangon Windhoek Yaren Kathmandu Beek Auckland Rivas Niamey Lagos Oslo Salalah Karachi Koror Jerusalem Panama City Port Moresby

Nearest Meteorological Station

Munich Accra, Ghana Ceuta, Spain Athens Guatemala City Dakar, Senegal Dakar, Senegal Boa Vista (Civ/Mil) Punta Maisi, Cuba Catacamas Hong Kong Debrecen Rajkot Chennai Bandar Seri Begawan Tehran Yazd Tabriz, Iran Kilkenny Be'Er Sheva Catania Accra, Ghana Santiago De Cuba Osaka Jerusalem, Israel Tashkent Nairobi Kwajalein Atoll Kwangju Pyongyang Podgorica Shiraz, Iran Kashi, China Hanoi, Vietnam Kaunas, Lithuania Damascus, Syria Johannesburg Dakar, Senegal Tripoli Innsbruck, Austria Kaunas St Hubert Thessaloniki Kuala Lumpur Gan Island Dakar, Senegal Cozzo Spadaro Kwajalein Atoll Dakar, Senegal Antananarivo Mexico City Belize Guam, Hi Odessa, Ukraine Nice, France Ulaanbaatar Podgorica Casablanca Johannesburg Bangkok, Thailand Cape Town Kwajalein Atoll Kathmandu Beek Auckland Rivas Accra, Ghana Accra, Ghana Oslo Abu Dhabi, UAE Karachi Koror Island Jerusalem Rivas, Nicaragua Weipa, Australia

58

Station Lat. (deg.)

48.13 5.6 35.89 37.9 14.58 14.73 14.73 2.83 20.25 14.9 22.32 47.48 22.31 13.07 4.93 35.41 31.88 38.05 52.67 31.25 37.47 5.6 19.97 34.78 31.87 41.27 -1.32 8.73 35.13 39.03 42.37 29.32 39.47 21.2 54.88 33.42 -26.13 14.73 32.67 42.27 54.88 50.03 40.52 3.12 -0.68 14.73 36.68 8.73 14.73 -18.8 19.43 17.53 13.55 46.45 43.65 47.93 42.37 33.37 -26.13 13.92 -33.98 8.73 27.7 50.92 -37.02 11.42 5.6 5.6 59.9 24.43 24.9 7.33 31.87 11.42 -12.68

Solar Energy 169 (2018) 55?66

StationLon. (deg.)

Opt tilt

11.7 -0.17 -5.29 23.73 -90.52 -17.5 -17.5 -60.7 -74.15 -85.93 114.17 21.63 70.8 80.24 114.93 51.19 54.28 46.17 -7.27 34.8 15.05 -0.17 -75.85 135.45 35.22 69.27 36.82 167.73 126.92 125.78 19.25 52.36 75.98 105.8 23.88 36.52 28.23 -17.5 13.5 11.35 23.88 5.4 22.97 101.55 73.15 -17.5 15.13 167.73 -17.5 47.48 -99.08 -88.3 144.83 30.7 7.2 106.98 19.25 -7.58 28.23 100.6 18.6 167.73 85.37 5.78 174.8 85.83 -0.17 -0.17 10.62 54.65 67.13 134.48 35.22 85.83 141.92

33 6a 31 29 18 14 14 6a 19 15 20 30 24 13 5a 31 26 30 36 29 27 6a 20 30 28 32 4a 12 29 36 36 26 35 16 33 29 -29 14 27 37 33 35 33 1a -2a 14 28 12 14 -18 17 16 14 31 35 43 36 28 -29 15 -30 12 29 34 -30 14 6a 6a 40 25 25 8a 28 14 -17

(continued on next page)

M.Z. Jacobson, V. Jadhav

Table 1 (continued)

Country

Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Russia Russia Russia Rwanda Saint Kitts And Nevis Saint Lucia Samoa San Marino Sao Tome & Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Sudan South Africa South Africa Spain Spain Sri-Lanka St. Vincent/Grenadines Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine Ukraine United States United States United States United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United Kingdom Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vatican City Venezuela Vietnam Yemen Zambia

Solar Energy 169 (2018) 55?66

Representative City

Asuncion Lima Manila Bielsko-Biala Lisbon Doha Bucharest St Petersburg Moscow Omsk Nyagatare Basseterre Castries Apia Fiorentino Sao Tome Riyadh Dakar Belgrade Victoria Freetown Singapore Kosice Ljubljana Honiara Mogadishu Juba Johannesburg Cape Town Castell?n Ceuta Colombo Kingstown Khartoum Kabalebo Mbabane Stockholm Geneva Damascus Taipei Dushanbe Arusha Bangkok Dili Lome Nukunuku San Fernando Tunis Ankara Diyarbakir Ashgabat Vaitupu Kampala Kiev Odessa Raleigh, NC Bakersfield, CA Austin, TX Abu Dhabi Hemsby London Montevideo Tashkent Elia Vatican City Caracas Hanoi Sana'A Lusaka

Nearest Meteorological Station

Asuncion Lima Manila Bielsko-Biala Lisbon Abu Dhabi, UAE Bucharest St Petersburg Moscow Omsk Kisii, Kenya Charlotte Amalie Fort-De-France Nadi, Fiji Rimini, Italy Accra, Ghana Riyadh Dakar Belgrade Lamu/Manda Island Dakar, Senegal Singapore Kosice Ljubljana Weipa, Australia Marsabit, Kenya Lowdar, Kenya Johannesburg Cape Town Castell?n Ceuta Colombo Fort-De-France Gondar, Ethiopia Boa Vista, Brazil Johannesburg Stockholm Geneva Damascus Taipei Tashkent Makindu, Kenya Bangkok Darwin, Australia Accra, Ghana Nadi, Fiji Fort-De-France Tunis Ankara Tabriz, Iran Tehran Mehrabad, Nadi, Fiji Kisii, Kenya Kiev Odessa Raleigh, NC Bakersfield, CA Austin, TX Abu Dhabi Hemsby London Montevideo Tashkent Nadi, Fiji Roma-Ciampino Caracas Hanoi Gondar, Ethiopia Harare, Zimbabwe

Station Lat. (deg.)

-25.25 -12 14.52 49.67 38.73 24.43 44.5 59.97 55.75 54.93 -0.67 18.35 14.6 -17.75 44.03 5.6 24.7 14.73 44.82 -2.27 14.73 1.37 48.7 46.22 -12.68 2.3 3.12 -26.13 -33.98 39.95 35.89 6.82 14.6 12.53 2.83 -26.13 59.65 46.25 33.42 25.07 41.27 -2.28 13.92 -12.42 5.6 -17.75 14.6 36.83 40.12 38.05 35.41 -17.75 -0.67 50.4 46.45 35.86 35.43 30.29 24.43 52.68 51.15 -34.83 41.27 -17.75 41.8 10.6 21.2 12.53 -17.92

StationLon. (deg.)

Opt tilt

-57.57 -77.12 121 19.25 -9.15 54.65 26.13 30.3 37.63 73.4 34.78 -64.97 -61 177.45 12.62 -0.17 46.8 -17.5 20.28 40.83 -17.5 103.98 21.27 14.48 141.92 37.9 35.62 28.23 18.6 -0.07 -5.29 79.88 -61 37.43 -60.7 28.23 17.95 6.13 36.52 121.55 69.27 37.83 100.6 130.88 -0.17 177.45 -61 10.23 32.98 46.17 51.19 177.45 34.78 30.45 30.7 -78.78 -119.05 -97.74 54.65 1.68 -0.18 -56 69.27 177.45 12.58 -66.98 105.8 37.43 31.13

-23 -7a 9a 31 35 25 32 40 37 42 -3a 18 14 -18 31 6a 24 14 34 -2a 14 0a 33 29 -17 4a 5a -29 -30 36 31 9a 14 18 6a -29 41 32 29 17 32 -4a 15 -18 6a -18 14 28 29 30 31 -18 -3a 35 31 32 29 28 25 34 34 -32 32 -18 30 10 16 18 -22

(continued on next page)

59

M.Z. Jacobson, V. Jadhav

Solar Energy 169 (2018) 55?66

Table 1 (continued)

Country

Representative City

Nearest Meteorological Station

Station Lat. (deg.)

StationLon. (deg.)

Opt tilt

Zimbabwe

Harare

Harare

-17.92

31.13

-22

a Indicates the optimal tilt angle is between +/-10?, thus panels will likely be tilted in practice either +10? for positive values or -10? for negative values to allow for rain to naturally wash them. Data are derived from PVWatts (NREL, 2017). The meteorological station used for radiation and meteorological data and its latitude and longitude are also shown. The optimal tilt angles are calculated assuming all panels are roof mount, premium panels with rated power of 10 kW, system losses of 10%, and facing due south in the Northern Hemisphere (180? azimuth angle, positive optimal tilt angle) or north in the Southern Hemisphere (0? azimuth angle, negative optimal tilt angle). In one case (Kenya), which is slightly in the Southern Hemisphere, the optimal tilt angle is facingl slightly south, thus negative. Calculations for several countries, particularly island countries, are based on the same meteorological station, since it is the nearest available, thus all output and tilt angles are the same. Such duplicate values are removed in all figures and in the derivation of all fitting curves. For some large countries geographically, results are shown for 2?4 locations.

data in each hemisphere. Fig. 1 also shows results from two linear estimates of optimal tilt angle versus latitude from Chang (2009) and Talebizadeh et al. (2011). For most mid-latitude values, the linear estimates and the polynomial fit track the PVWatts optimal tilt angles well.

However, for high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere, the linear fits diverge substantially for most, but not all data. The reason is that the linear estimates ignore cloud cover and air pollution, but in reality, heavy cloud cover and haze exist in many high-latitude countries and regions. Greater cloud cover results in lower optimal tilt angles because clouds scatter solar radiation isotropically, so the closer a panel is to the horizontal under cloudy skies, the more diffuse solar radiation it will receive that is scattered by clouds above them. Further, the direct component of solar radiation, which depends significantly on tilt angle, is largely blocked by clouds, so the diffuse component becomes more important when clouds are present. In sum, on average, the 3rd-order polynomial fit derived here appears to represent better the optimal tilt angle of solar panels above around 40? N latitude than some previous linear functions do.

However, the linear functions do estimate optimal tilt better than the polynomial fit at a few high-latitude locations that have relatively clear sky. For example, Calgary (51.12? N), has a higher optimal tilt angle (45?) than does Beek, the Netherlands (34?), which is at a similar latitude (50.92? N). The reason, as explained above, is that Calgary is exposed to less cloud cover so panels can more efficiently take advantage of overhead sun. In Beek, due to heavier cloud cover, panels are

exposed to less direct light, so must take advantage of isotropic diffuse light scattered by clouds above them and receive more of such light with a lower optimal tilt angle. Other data (Breyer and Schmid, 2010a) similarly indicate that optimal tilt angles vary substantially at the same latitude but different longitude, in many parts of the world.

Calgary, in fact, benefits the most from tilting and tracking among all locations examined with PVWatts. Solar output there is 32.4% higher with optimal tilting than with horizontal panels (no tilting) and 91.4% higher with 2-axis tracking than with no tilting. In Beek, optimal tilting yields only 14.6% greater output than with no tilting, and 2-axis tracking yields only 34.8% greater output than with no tilting. Tracking and tilting both benefit Calgary the most in January (ratio of 2-axis:no tilt of 3.44 and optimal tilt:no tilt of 2.68) and the least in June (1.51 and 0.93). Tracking and tilting benefit Beek the most in December (ratio of 2-axis:no tilt of 1.97 and optimal tilt:no tilt of 1.64) and the least in June (1.14 and 0.98).

The difference between Calgary and Beek is due entirely to the greater cloudiness (Anderson and West, 2017) and aerosol pollution (The World Bank, 2017) in the Netherlands than in Canada, and aerosol pollution enhances cloud optical thickness. Conversely, reducing aerosol pollution reduces cloudiness and increases surface solar radiation. For example, between 1980 and 2005, surface solar radiation in Europe increased about 10 W/m2 (Ohmura, 2009). The reason is that, between 1985 and 2007, aerosol optical depth over Europe declined 69%, increasing surface solar radiation (Chiacchio et al., 2011). Fewer aerosol particles result in clouds being optically thinner due to the first

Optimal Tilt Angle (degrees) Optimal Tilt Angle (degrees)

70

70

10

10

C09: -2.14+ 0.764

60

C09: 2.14+ 0.764

T11: 7.203+ 0.6804

60

0

T11: -7.203+ 0.6804

This study:-0.41657+ (1.4216+ (0.024051

0

+0.00021828)) (R=0.97)

50

This study: 1.3793+ (1.2011+ (-0.014404

50

+0.000080509)) (R=0.96)

-10

-10

40

40

-20

-20

30

30

-30

-30

20

20

10

10

Northern Hemisphere

0

0

0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64

Latitude (degrees)

-40

Southern Hemisphere

-50

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

Latitude (degrees)

-40

-50 0

Fig. 1. Estimated optimal tilt angles and 3rd-order polynomial fits through them of fixed-tilt solar collectors for all countries in the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere, as derived from PVWatts. Data for each country are from Table 1. Countries with identical tilt angles in Table 1, due to the fact that they rely on the same meteorological station as other countries, are excluded from the figure and curve fits. Also shown are linear equations from two previous studies, Chang [7, C09] and Talebizadeh [8, T11], where is latitude (in degrees). To allow for rain to naturally clean panels, optimal tilt angles between -10 and +10? latitude are usually limited to either -10? (for negative values) or +10? (for positive values).

60

M.Z. Jacobson, V. Jadhav

Solar Energy 169 (2018) 55?66

indirect effect of aerosol particles on clouds. Because aerosol pollution is likely to drop further between now and 2050, solar output is likely to increase further by 2050. Since PVWatts relies on 30 years of past meteorological data and recent solar radiation data, it may thus underestimate 2050 solar resource in any currently polluted region of the world.

In practice, when the optimal tilt angle is between -10 and +10?, which occurs primarily in the tropics, installers generally tilt the panel either -10 or +10? to allow for rainfall to naturally cleanse the panels. The locations that this affects are denoted in Table 1.

from onshore and offshore wind, rooftop and utility scale PV, and CSP; and heat from solar-thermal equipment. It accounts for competition among wind turbines for available kinetic energy, tilting and tracking of PV panels, the temperature-dependence of PV output, the reduction in sunlight to rooftops and the ground due to extraction of radiation by solar devices, changes in air and ground temperature due to power extraction by PV and use of the resulting electricity, and the impacts of time-dependent gas, aerosol, and cloud concentrations on solar radiation fields. Below, the model is briefly described only with respect to radiation transfer and treatment of solar PV.

4. Calculating incident solar radiation with GATOR-GCMOM

The 3rd-order optimal tilt polynomials as a function of latitude (Fig. 1), derived from PVWatts data, were input worldwide into every grid cell in the global weather-climate-air-pollution model GATORGCMOM (Gas, Aerosol, Transport, Radiation, General Circulation, Mesoscale, and Ocean Model) (Jacobson, 2001a, 2001b, 2005, 2012; Jacobson et al., 2007, 2014; Jacobson and Archer, 2012). All individual optimal tilts from Table 1 within 700 km to the west or east and within 250 km to the south or north of a grid cell horizontal center were then interpolated to each cell center using a 1/R2 interpolation (where R = distance from the cell center to the data point) and using the background value as one data point 700 km ? 250 km away. This interpolation resulted in values from Table 1 dominating near the locations in Table 1 but also in background values dominating over ocean water and over land away from the locations in Table 1. Fig. 2 shows the resulting worldwide field, which was input into GATOR-GCMOM. Fig. 2 does not reflect GATOR-GCMOM meteorology, only values from PVWatts. Fig. 2 does not show more variation with longitude because the number of locations with specific optimal tilt values in Table 1 is relatively small, particularly for big countries, and no locations are over the ocean. PVWatts itself was not used in GATOR-GCMOM.

GATOR-GCMOM was then run for the year 2050 to calculate radiation normal to flat-plate (horizontal) panels (Fig. 3), normal to optimally-tilted panels, normal to 1-axis vertically tracking panels, normal to 1-axis horizontally tracking panels, and normal to 2-axis panels. Ratios of incident radiation in each tilting or tracking case to that in the horizontal panel case were then plotted (Figs. 4 and 5).

In general, GATOR-GCMOM simulates feedbacks among meteorology, solar and thermal-infrared radiation, gases, aerosol particles, cloud particles, oceans, sea ice, snow, soil, and vegetation. GATORGCMOM model predictions of wind and solar resources have been compared with data in multiple studies (e.g., Jacobson, 2001a, 2001b, 2005, 2012; Jacobson et al., 2007, 2014), including here. With respect to energy, it predicts output of time- and space-dependent electricity

90

4.1. Radiative processes in GATOR-GCMOM

In GATOR-GCMOM, each model column for radiative calculations is divided into clear- and cloudy-sky columns, and separate calculations are performed for each. Radiative transfer is solved simultaneously through multiple layers of air and one snow, sea ice, or ocean water layer at the bottom to calculate, rather than prescribe, spectral albedos over these surfaces. For vegetated or bare land surfaces, no layer is added. The 2-stream radiative code (Toon et al., 1989) solves the atmospheric radiative transfer equation for radiances, irradiances, atmospheric heating rates, and actinic fluxes through each of 68 model layers in each column, over each of 694 wavelengths/probability intervals in the ultraviolet, visible, solar-infrared, and thermal-infrared spectra (Jacobson, 2005), accounting for gas and size- and compositiondependent aerosol and cloud optical properties (Jacobson, 2012). The intervals include 86 ultraviolet and visible wave intervals from 170 to 800 nm, 232 visible, solar-infrared, and thermal-infrared probability intervals from 800 nm to 10 m, and 376 thermal-infrared probability intervals from 10 m to 1000 m. Solar radiation calculations here span from 170 nm to 10 m. The solar panel efficiency accounts for the portion of this spectrum that the panel actually absorbs in. The model calculates both downward and reflected upward direct and diffuse radiation.

Cloud thermodynamics in GATOR-GCMOM is parameterized to treat subgrid cumulus clouds in each model column based on an Arakawa-Schubert treatment. Aerosol particles of all composition and size and all gases are convected vertically within each subgrid cloud. Aerosol-cloud interactions and cloud and precipitation microphysics are time-dependent, explicit, and size- and composition-resolved. The model simulates the size- and composition-resolved microphysical evolution from aerosol particles to clouds and precipitation, the first and second aerosol indirect effects, the semi-direct effect, and cloud absorption effects I and II (which are the heating of a cloud due to solar absorption by absorbing inclusions in cloud drops and by swollen absorbing aerosol particles interstitially between cloud drops,

Solar PV optimal tilt (degrees)

40

20

0 0

-20

-40

-60 -90

-180

-90

0

90

180

Fig. 2. Optimal tilt angles for PV panels worldwide that are input into GATOR-GCMOM. These are calculated as described in the text.

61

M.Z. Jacobson, V. Jadhav

90

Incident solar, horizontal panel (kWh/m2/day) (g:4.57; l:4.48; o:4.60)

Solar Energy 169 (2018) 55?66

6

5

0 4

3

2 -90

-180

-90

0

90

180

Fig. 3. Annually averaged (2050) modeled downward only (not downward minus reflected upward) direct plus diffuse solar radiation incident on and normal to a flat, horizontal panel.

respectively) (Jacobson, 2012). Aerosol and cloud optical properties for radiative purposes are

calculated by integrating spectral optical properties over each size bin of each aerosol and hydrometeor particle size distribution. Aerosol spectral optical properties of a given size are determined by assuming that black carbon, if present, is a core surrounded by a mixed shell and that the aerosol liquid water content is a function of the ambient relative humidity and aerosol composition. Cloud spectral optical properties of a given size are determined accounting for scattering by aerosol particles between cloud particles, where aerosol particle liquid water content is determined at the relative humidity of the cloud. Cloud drop, ice crystal, and graupel optical properties are determined accounting for the time-dependent evolution of black carbon, brown carbon, and soil dust inclusions within the drops, crystals, and graupel. Ice crystal and graupel optical properties also account for the nonsphericity of these particles (Jacobson, 2012).

4.2. Treatment of solar PV in GATOR-GCMOM

GATOR-GCMOM predicts time-dependent direct and diffuse solar radiation as a function of wavelength, accounting for time-dependent predicted gas, aerosol particle, and cloud particle concentrations. The radiative transfer calculation also accounts for surface albedo (and predicts albedo over water, snow, and ice surfaces), building and vegetation shading, angle of the sun, Earth-sun distance, Earth-space refraction, and solar intensity versus wavelength. As such, the model predicts the variable nature of solar radiation fields.

Photovoltaics in the model are either horizontal (flat on the ground), optimally tilted (for rooftop PV) or tracked (for utility PV). Each time step that the two-stream radiative transfer code (Toon et al., 1989) is called in the model, zenith angles in a vacuum (z) are calculated for each PV tilting case as follows:

a) Incident solar ratio, optimal tilt:?at panel (g:1.19 l:1.30 o:1.15) 90

90 b) Incident solar ratio, 1-axis vert track:?at panel (g:1.22 l:1.33 o:1.17)

2.5

2.5

2

2

0

0

1.5

1.5

-90

1 -90

1

-180

-90

0

90

180

-180

-90

0

90

180

c) Incident solar ratio, 1-axis horiz track:?at panel (g:1.35 l:1.46 o:1.31) 90

d) Incident solar ratio, 2-axis track:?at panel (gl1.39 l:1.50 o:1.34 90

2.5

2.5

2

2

0

0

1.5

1.5

-90

1 -90

1

-180

-90

0

90

180

-180

-90

0

90

180

Fig. 4. Ratio of incident direct plus diffuse solar radiation normal to a panel surface for PV panels that are either (a) optimally tilted, (b) tracking the sun vertically (swiveling vertically around a horizontal axis), (c) tracking the sun horizontally (at their optimal tilt and swiveling horizontally around a vertical axis), or (d) tracking the sun both vertically and horizontally, relative to downward (not downward minus reflected upward) radiation (shown in Fig. 3) normal to flat (horizontal) panels.

62

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download